Web Stories

Singer joins political debate in book about Bush's ethics

Posted July 12, 2004; 03:07 p.m.

by Core Site Editors

Walk into a bookstore these days and you're likely to see a table
crowded with books about President Bush. Amid the insider accounts by
former White House officials and the examinations of Bush's policies by
investigative journalists is Peter Singer's new book, "The President is
Good & Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush" (Dutton Books).

Singer, the DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, has analyzed the ethical basis
of a broad range of policies implemented by the Bush administration during
the last three years. Singer observes that Bush, more than any president
in recent memory, has made pronouncements on good and evil and right and
wrong a regular part of his dialogue with the American people.

Singer, who has been at Princeton since 1999, has written extensively
on ethical issues for the last 30 years. Among his most notable works
are "Animal Liberation," "Practical Ethics" and "Rethinking
Life and Death," which received the 1995 Australian National Book
Council's Banjo Award for non-fiction. He is widely credited with triggering
the animal-rights movement.

In his latest work, Singer examines the president's pronouncements on
tax cuts, stem-cell research, the war in Iraq and faith-based initiatives,
among other topics, and finds what he believes to be ethical inconsistencies.
Throughout the book, Singer makes the case that Bush has failed to carry
through on the values he has so often trumpeted. Recently Singer spoke
to the Princeton Weekly Bulletin about how he became interested in writing
about a current political figure and whether it's appropriate to question
the ethics of a sitting president.

Isn't it somewhat unusual for a philosopher to be writing about
these kinds of current political issues?

It is somewhat unusual because of the way philosophers
see themselves today, but there is a tradition of philosophers being actively
involved in political questions. In the 19th century, John Stuart Mill
was writing about many political issues and actually served as a member
of the House of Commons for a time. But with the professionalization of
philosophy it's solidly housed in academia now it's become more unusual
for philosophers to actually look at current political figures in the
way that I'm doing.

I think it is desirable for not only philosophers but other people in
academia to roll up their sleeves and get into this. I'm not saying every
philosopher has to, but I think it's a healthy thing for the political
debate in the country for academics to contribute to political discussions.